Social Security Chaining to CPI is interesting! But, to be fair, shouldn't we include Federal and State Government pensions as well? After all, President Johnson robbed Social Security and yet it's always been fungible. The Federal Government on the other hand; in the short history of Federal Pensions and State Pension has numerous times been bailed out with tax payer money!
Let's have the President and other Federal Officials get skin in the game! LET"S INSIST ON IT! Federal and State Government employee pensions should be the same Chain as Social Security!!

Relief is not in sight. Boehner, started as the head of a hostage-taking ring, is now himself a hostage. He will go down in history as one of the most ineffective speakers of the house. Now, he cannot even speak for his own party.

If the electorate didn't want a check on The President, a Republican house wouldn't have been returned. President Obama's re-election wasn't reflective of an increase in plurality as was the case with Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush. Speaker Boehner should hold his ground.

You conveniently ignore the fact that only some house members are up for election in a given year. Of the seats that were voted on, more went to Democrats than Republicans. So your case is valid for 2010, but not for 2012.

And by your logic, they elected a Republican House, so Americans want Boehner to hold his ground. And a Democratic Senate, so they want Reid to hold his ground. So by your logic, Americans don't want to solve the problem?

I would propose the more logical conclusion that Americans want BOTH sides to compromise, they do not want either side to hold their ground.

Actually, that's only some (1/3) Senate members are up for re-election every two years. All of the House members are. But what he ignores is the fact that the Republicans maintained a majority in the House, even though nationwide the Democratic candidates collectively got several hundred thousand more votes than the Republican candidates collectively. Amazing what creative district drawing can do.

The creators of the American constitution created a system of checks and balance. You may want to consult with The Federalist Papers. The Framing of the Constitution by Max Farrand would be a great read. Jouris reminded you of the facts below..

Creative district drawing is bipartisan in nature. It is obvious that we both have our own spins.

This may interest you. Jefferson was in France during the constitutional convention. During a conversation with Washington after he returned, he questioned the value of a senate. Washington's analogy was reflective of the house as the cup and the senate as a saucer which would serve to cool the hot tea after having been poured onto it. I would have loved to have been there.

OK, if that's the "comparable" example you are citing, then I can see that there's not going to be a lot of point trying to converse with you, but I will give one last response:

First the SC case was a challenge to a long history of precedence. The current issue is a budget negotiation, something that Congress does every year. There isn't anything radical here, just a difference of opinion of approaches.

Additionally, in the case of the SC packing, the Senate rejected FDR's proposal. Which was essentially a yes vote for the status quo. By not compromising, the SC remained as it was.

In the current situation, a refusal to compromise is also essnetially a YES vote on the fiscal cliff. There is not a tenable status quo. The refusal to compromise will result in a substantial change to the status quo. This would be more like if their vote against an added member would have had the result of eliminating the SC entirely. In that case, yes, IMHO compromise would have been the wiser choice.

Taxing the rich, according to my weltanschauung and many economists, would slow job growth to the extent that we would be in a recession. Risk aversion is a factor here. Since taxes have to factored in with other costs of production, the wealthy will use a plethera of means to sit on their money or invest elsewhere.

Some economists differ so it is a matter of perspective, not logic. It is also a matter of hermeneutics. Once we have established our political paradigms, we interpret "facts" in light of them. Fox News and NBC would be great examples. I believe it was Plato who referred to a "fact" as a raw brute thing in need of interpretation. If facts, principles and truth were easily defined, we wouldn't need judges, juries or judicial review.

Dear All,
I found this a well-written (typically TE) and interesting article on an important subject, but why is there no mention of the much more important subject of effective control of 'weapons of mass destruction',i.e., the ready availability to every citizen permitted to drive a car or a motor bike, of a military-style assault weapon? Man alive! where are these 'weapons of mass destruction? I'll tell you, Man, dey is in the US of A, where they have a weapon of mass distruction for every man, woman and child, and they are most effective against chillun' and wimmin. Yes sir!
I simply don't understand
Ik begrijp het niet
Ich verstehe nicht,
Je ne comprends pas
Non capisco
Saya tidak mengerti
Eu não entendo
Anlam?yorum
nie rozumiem
i ne komprenas
etc., etc.
(I'm afraid I've exhausted both my knowledge of other languages as well at that of Google translate.)
It seems to me that either Lexington was on a Christmas holiday or somebody is is cahoots with the NRA.
Nevertheless, I wish everyone an as happy as possible Christmas, etc, etc
Michael Watson
The Hague

Republicans should be happy with the outcome of the 'cliff' because it lets them have tax inceases and spending cuts without political responsibility for them. They keep saying, We need to cut spending, now you say how. We need to close loopholes but we can't name any specific one. Didn't learn much in November. Vagueness isn't a policy. When they say that the farm program is an entitlement that we can do without, I will take them seriously. Actually this brinksmanship is a reflection of their long-stated idea that the only way to get what they want is to threaten the end of the economic world. Watch for them to offer a VAT as the only hope of salvation.

No way they offer VAT. It would require enacting a new tax, and so is absolutely verbotten.

As for cuts, they've got a great plan: cut things that they dislike (e.g. foreign aid) while claiming that those things make up half of the Federal budget rather than 1%. Presto! Cuts bring the budget into balance. Except for the minor detail that they don't. But hey, their true believers believe that it will work, so reality is irrelevant.

The problem on writing an article like this on a subject as intractable as the fiscal cliff/deficit is that the reality what is going on will change as the major players continue their little dance.

As of 12/20 9:00 EST, there is no agreement what so ever on anything; the Dems say no to Repubs plan B and Obama isn't saying anything about spending cuts. Without spending cuts spelled out, no deal--hello cliff.

There is a simple way to make Medicare viable & cut the deficit. Everyone is provided with a fixed amount of coverage over their lifetime (say $300,000). One then purchases a $300,000 deductible policy to cover the rest if you can afford to. If not, one thinks carefully about how much of one's allotment is left before spending it. Maybe you decide to lose weight or stop smoking to stretch it out. As with "pump your own gas" (a concept lost on those from NJ), you perform the function that a "death panel" would otherwise perform of rationing health care. This plan is not perfect, but it recognizes that inevitably those better off will end up with better health care one way or another. Even so, those less well off can be well-provided for.

Seems a like draconian solution to me. Buy private insurance above $300K or just go off and die somewhere.

I think there might be other ways to cut healthcare costs before considering your nuclear option. One would be to institute a single payer system - and cut the insurance companies out of the equation. That alone would cut healthcare costs by $25%. Another solution would be to allow the federal government to negotiate discounts with drug companies. We are the only country paying list price for drugs, thanks to a law which prohibits this at the moment.

You are right - we need to put in strict controls on end of life treatments for people with terminal illnesses. A national assisted suicide options would be a start for those of us who choose to decline treatments and die with dignity.

"Mr Boehner is also willing to raise the debt ceiling far enough to avoid the risk that the threat of default is used in fiscal negotiations in 2013."

Ok, but aren't tax raises and budget cuts pro-cyclical? The only thing here is of any interest is the debt ceiling despite the total wastage of political energy.

As for the Republicans and their desire to trim Medicare, a death panel or two or telling the corpus of recipients they need to figure out amongst themselves how to limit their expenditures to yearly receipts starting now, are actions that will limit costs quickly. Everything else is pretty much whitewash... or a bandaid.

Isn't that exactly what the U.S.should be doing; delay impacts on GDP until the economy picks up more steam? Then, revenues would increase and the "necessary" expenditures should be covered.

The debate should have always been about what is NOT necessary. I know that is a relative term, but just like porn, you will know it when you see it. Only question is if politicians have the courage to deal with it.

Boenher betrays once again that his loyalties are not with the nation, but frighteningly skewed to the rich & the powerful. National interests continue to be unashamdly ignored or sidelined by the greed-driven, wealth-worshipping GOP charlattans.

Boehner's support for his so-called Plan B proposal reflects the leverage that Obama gained in his re-election and a potential dilution of the Republican anti-tax brand.

Anti-tax groups including the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation oppose Boehner's plan. Americans for Tax Reform, the group led by Grover Norquist, issued a statement saying that the plan didn't violate Norquist's anti-tax pledge without calling Plan B a good idea.

The spending measure resembles a bill passed in May along party lines that would cut food stamps, federal workers' benefits and other domestic initiatives to replace $55 billion in automatic defense reductions set to take effect next month.

They have to keep the defense contractors in their districts at the trough.

I find it curious that many arguments here are initiated with, "A majority of Americans..."
The majority of Americans have never taken a personal finance course, an economics course, and according to the national statistics, spend more than they make in a given year. Roughly 70% of American consumers are in debt. 70-80% of Americans don't bother to save nearly enough for retirement. A majority of Americans supported invading Iraq. 20% of Americans believe in warlocks and witches. 20% believe the sun revolves around the Earth. 60% of Americans cannot identify the three branches of the U.S. government.
All politics aside, can we stop using the majority of Americans as the basis for intelligent decision-making or a crutch for supporting political views?

The only point of quoting what the majority of Americans believe is that it clarifies what is politically feasible and what is politically very hard. It does not mean the majority are the voice of wisdom.

Actually, the FACT is that the vast majority of Americans today live on Slave Wages, so there is NOTHING TO SAVE.

Slave Economics 101:

My theory below is based on the following premise by Hazel Henderson:

"The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage."

So, based on that statement, I will argue that economics is an elaborate illusion and, yes indeed, merely "politics in disguise."

Economic Policies and Politics:
The entire slave-based economy is, in FACT, the political structure itself. Indeed the entire economy of the world has been and still is deliberately engineered by the very few men in and of the de facto POWER STRUCTURE. These very few shadowy figures, today and hereon known as the Trillionaires, have been from the very inception of controlled human societies and communities, it is THOSE people who have been and still are pulling ALL THE STRINGS of the mere Puppets in this OSTENSIBLE government (Look Up "Ostensible").

So, the Robber Barons, has/have succeeded for quite some time to keep a fairly tight lid on too much knowledge, learning, awareness, fact-based truth; Since learning and discovering actual FACTS would, of course, lead to bitter protest and violent revolt, and maybe even to their, the Robber Barons', own rather bloody DEMISE.

There is a veritable myriad of totally intentional distractions, deliberately designed to hide the truth and the FACTS, (Ongoing SLAVERY, THEFT, PLUNDER), Distractions on any and every contrived "side" of the political spectrum; the entire "Left"-"Right" paradigm is also a very useful and effective contrivance; So-called "Issues;" Also totally Contrived to distract the populace away from FACTS, TRUTH. That is, distract the fools Away from what the Robber Barons are actually doing (STEALING, PLUNDERING); Let them bicker and argue about such issues as Abortion, gun rights, etc., etc. All and every technique is used; All are forms of intentional trickery.

Religion, though, has worked like a charm since the day it was invented and written down (by MEN), and Religion is still, bar none, the most highly effective tool for mind control today. Well, there WAS the period in history known as the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, Well, We all know about that history, don't we? CRUSHED IMMEDIATELY and THOROUGHLY BY (GUESS WHO); Replaced with RELIGION, NEVER TO SURFACE Widely AGAIN.

So, skipping straight to the late 20th century, the 1980′s specifically, the emergence of Ronald Reagan, his total embracing of the R-wing “Christian” Fundamentalist-lunatics; the beginnings of the Total DEREGULATION of ALL industry; the utterly Fantastic LIE of ”trickle-down” economics; And the new “service” economy (SLAVE); All worked hand in hand to set the new and more all-encompassing SLAVERY (Yes, that means ALL OF US) and the Modern slave-based economy.

And every [Puppet] Administration after that old bastard Reagan--Democrat, Republican--they are ALL IN IT TOGETHER--every government tool of the WHITE POWER STRUCTURE Did follow, in lock-step, the ongoing and now thorough DEREGULATION of every single industry and the Privatization of ALL previously public sectors.

Clinton, of course, was among the most destructive of these twisted, perverted white men, as he is the one that repealed the Glass-Stegal Act that had been put into place by FDR after the Great Depression of the 1930s. Clinton did it, knowing very well the history and the certain ramifications [of giving a gigantic idiot-child a machine gun, i.e. DEREGULATION]; So, doing it anyway for his billionaire buddies in the Banks and on Wall Street; That, along with the passing of the Graham-Leech Bill, took away any and all restraints, i.e. REGULATIONS, from the banking industry and the financial sector..

So, look around NOW. They tanked the economy deliberately; They want, for lack of a better term, Zombie-Slaves that won’t think or even ask why: (IDIOT-AMERICA). And they've sure GOT them and they've got them by the BOAT LOAD.

The main difference (other than race, i.e. skin color) between slavery then and slavery now, is that NOW, as the world is literally collapsing from overpopulation and centuries of destructive pillaging and ruinous plundering of the entire planet, the main difference is that those few men whom are "controlling" the people, the governments, etc., are thoroughly capable of committing mass Genocide. And Engineered genocide is a clever and historic tactic; And it works too. They've been doing it all throughout history. Whether by Guns, Drugs, Prisons, Wars; You name it!! The main goal is very clear: Let "them" kill each other and themselves, on the battlefield, in the ghettos, etc. and let them ALL simply DIE OFF. They don't give a damn.

Pretty damn well said; Now if you can say all that in 25 words or less I'll take you to dinner! The only add I might request is: the stupefying effect of repetitive-action-employment that makes stupid robots out of people. It was Adam Smith's corollary caveat to the division of labor.

However, I must add, that in a democracy, the majority of Americans do matter, they are the "deciders". (And before I get yelled at, yes I know that we are a Republic. A Republic is still supposed to generally reflect the populace.)

One of the ugly truths of a democratic country is that the majority are entitled to be wrong.... over and over and over.

(As said, your point is stil valid, I just think it needs to be tempered a bit)

WE have insight as to who the President Obama really cares about. He's willing to kick the Seniors in the teeth. This isn't because of the bargaining. This was considered long before the negotiation. Peter Orszag when he was picked by the President as Head of Management and Budget had similar presentations. Last Summer during the Grand bargain Obama was in favor of this. Bernie Saunders a real Liberal told the Huntington Post this in September before the election.
Ah, you Seniors you're just too rich! Do you all make that much money?? Did you vote for "Chained CPI?" Welcome to Obama's philosophy!

Which is about as accurate (or inaccurate) as saying that the House Republicans only care about those making over $500,000 per year, and are willing to kick everybody else in the teeth to preserve their low tax rates.

The fact is, someone is going to have to feel some serious pain when (not if) we figure out that we cannot afford to pay everybody everything that they think that they were promised or are entitled to. All we can do is work out who will pay, and how much. Picking out one group, and claiming that they are the only ones being picked on is nonsense.

" The fact is, someone is going to have to feel some serious pain when (not if) we figure out that we cannot afford to pay everybody everything that they think that they were promised or are entitled to. All we can do is work out who will pay, and how much. Picking out one group, and claiming that they are the only ones being picked on is nonsense."

It is true. Somehow, though, Room 101 from "1984" popped into my mind. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, will do what Winston did in Room 101: scream at the top of his/her lung that, "Do it to the others! Do it to the others!".... We do not want to feel the pain. We want others to feel the pain. Whoever, whatever those "others" might be. For some it is the old; for others it is those who have more than they do; for others it is those who have less than they do; and so on and on. This is as big of a FUBAR in American politics as we'll get in this, or the next few generations. This is not going to be either easy or pretty...

Here's the thing... soon, the baby boomers will all be retired and there will not be enough workers paying into the system. Nobody is willing to add more revenues (upping the cap from 100k to 250k for wages subject to FICA would be a good place to start), so benefits will come down. There are far worse things than linking it to CPI, such as privatizing it like the Republicans tried to do under Bush 43.

Social Security requires payment monthly from a paycheck, it is not an entitlement! When Seniors sent their money in it was "Hard Money"
It was far more powerful in buying power. A car costs $7000 for a Cadillac, A steak diner at the best restaurant cost $3.95 with drink. You get the idea! Hard money paid in but, weak money paid back.

To make it worse the Parties now want to cut the miniscule CPI hikes. I'm lucky, mine isn't my only income. I've saved well.
I do charity in a church. I cook lunches and dinners for the less fortunate. We get older couples that eat there who get Social Security. They are proud, they worked all their life. They did not take food stamps, nor did they work the disability system, nor did they take unemployment compensation!

they worked and paid into a system that was robbed by President Johnson to pay for the War and the Great Society and welfare. Had he and successive Presidents not robbed the fund, it would be fine. Do Your Homework!
Think about it!

I'm quite aware of what Social Security tax money could buy in the 1960s. After all, I was among those paying into it then.

But I also know that anyone with sense could see that, since Social Security taxes were being used to pay for current Social Security recipients, it was basically a pyramid scheme. Which those who were paying attention took to mean that we should save for our own retirement, because we were unlike ever to see a dime back. I know a lot of people did not make that connection, but it isn't like it wasn't obvious.

The only realistic was to look at Social Security "contributions" is, and always has been, as just one more tax. If anyone thinks that they are actually buying some kind of future guaranteed benefit, they are only fooling themselves. Which means that Johnson et al. didn't so much rob Social Security to pay for other programs as (fraudulantly) misrepresent what those Social Security taxes actually were. And politicians today (from both parties, and pretty much without exception) continue to endores the myth, because they would get flayed alive for admitting the truth -- not least by those who believed them in the past, and would really, really hate to discover just what chumps they had been taken for.

The Fund was massively liquid in 1964 because there were far fewer people over 65, and a huge bulge of us Baby Boomers coming along to join the workforce.

Folks in our parents' generation routinely had 3-4 kids, often more. These days, the fertility rate has been down near 2 for a couple of decades, and we're all starting to retire. Which means there is a lot more money about to go out, and far less (in proportion) going to be coming in.

Jouris, your posts are almost always accurate, so I have to correct you on your use of "pyramid scheme" here. I know what you are trying to say, but as one who studies these kinds of things, it simply does not constitute a pyramid scheme. Using current revenues to pay for current recipients does not make for a pyramid scheme. In fact, most businesses use some variation of this in their day to day operations.

A pyramid scheme is mathematically unsubstainable as more people enter. If SS continued to pay people after they died, that would be a pyramid scheme. But as long as people continue to die, SS can be sustained forever. What has happened is simpy that people live longer, so the original formula needs adjustment. As people live longer, we need to increase rates and/or adjust retirement age to keep it in balance. But with continued adjustments based on actuarial tables, the system can work perfectly fine and continue forever. It is most definitely not a pyramid scheme.

Thanks for the correction. Always more to learn . . . especially in fields outside my actual areas of expertise. (Although always a lot to learn within them, now that I think on it.)

What I was trying to express was that Social Security was set up assuming a certain ratio of workers to retirees. As life expectancies at 65 increased, and the fertility rate dropped, that ratio was going to change. To the point that there would have to be serious changes -- either increases in what the workers were paying in, or decreases in what the retirees got out. But instead, the politicians were using the bulge from the Baby Boomers to increase benefits already in the 1960s. And carefully not mentioning that those benefits could never be paid to the workers then being taxed.

The reason I thought the term pyramid scheme applied was that Social Security assumed that there would always be a rising population of workers, to the point that the ratio of workers to retirees would be maintained. As soon as that ratio started dropping, things fall apart. Which seemed (to my outsider's eye) quite like what happens in a pyramid scheme -- at some point you can't bring in new suckers fast enough to keep up promised payments to those already enrolled.

P.S. If a pyramid scheme could somehow adjust its return formula, would it then cease to be a pyramid scheme? Because that seems to be what you are saying keeps SS form being one.

You make valid points, I'm simply correcting the use of the term "pyramid scheme", which has some very specific characteristics.

A pyramid scheme is just mathematically impossible, even with adjustments. That is why it is illegal and considered fraud. (Of course one could always be creative with the term "adjustment" to adjust it so much that it no longer is a pyramid).

BTW, even if social security did not adjust the ratio/formula, it would still technically not be a pyramid scheme. (That'd be more like a business that simply didn't match revenue with expenses and went bankrupt).

Here's a business example. If I am a business and I charge $100 for the product, but promise to give rebates of $50 the next week. It may not be wise, but it is mathematically sustainable (as long as I can get eventually get my costs below $50 per item).

But a pyramid scheme is more akin to my charging $100 but promising a $50 rebate every week for 20 years. That is a mathematical impossibility to sustain. Even if every person in the world became a customer, even if I adjusted prices, no matter how efficiently I make the product, there is simply no way to sustain a return greater than 100%.

The ‘fiscal cliff’ is the spectre of an ill-conceived piece of legislation from last year in which Congress, unable to create a budget, pledged to deliver a new austerity budget by 2 January 2013.

If this isn’t delivered, and there are plenty of reasons to believe it won’t, the United States will be hit with a fiscal blows amounting to $110 billion. This will be comprised of automatic hikes in levels of personal taxation for most people coupled with deep spending cuts to programmes such as defence. Some 2 million unemployed Americans will also lose their unemployment insurance.

Unless extraordinary measures are taken by the treasury in the next few weeks, the US will hit its borrowing limit again and will be unable to pay its bills. The treasury may opt in buying up to three months’ more time but, after that, the country could be in a position to default on its debts.

One would have thought that given the seriousness of the situation Congress would have been rushing to deliver a solution. Despite some progress, prevarication seems to be rueing the day – neither Republicans or Democrats want to be seen to be compromising too much. Both sides agree that the government must cut the budget and raise taxes; yet, attempts so far to actually get there are best described as feeble.

Mr Obama initially reasoned that those earning in excess of $250,000 a year could afford automatic tax hikes. Republicans, though, have found this definition of ‘wealth’ unpalatable. They insist that taxes should only be raised on those making more than $1m a year, and remain resolute in slashing government spending on social safety-net programmes like Medicare and social security.

US Republicans have dithered ever since President Obama came to office. Poor cooperation led to sloppy economic and financial policy. A call for financial reform in 2009, after the American financial crisis, led to a cumbersome and bureaucratic piece of legislation – the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This failed to create a single real change in financial reform.

In 2011, Congress repeatedly procrastinated over budget negotiations to the eleventh hour of being unable to pay its bills. That led the United States in losing its prestigious AAA credit rating which in turn culminated in what we have now, the fiscal cliff.

To avoid repeating past legislative debacles, the president has at least changed his negotiating style: Mr Obama’s willingness to compromise on the earnings threshold (i.e. $400,000) before tax increases will take effect is one such indicator. Another has been the invitations to chief executives and Wall Street leaders into the White House to share their views on taxation policy and austerity.

The so-called DEBT, and the manufactured Panic surrounding it is nothing but a pure contrivance. Like almost all other nonsense, this confabulated "issue" is broadly bandied around by the corporate shills is nothing but a colossal SCAM; It is nothing more than a RUSE, a TOOL used specifically by the Republicans to distract, confuse and stupefy people.

The FACT is that the monied Power Elite have been intentionally Bilking everyone down the line, by way of a massive Scheme to Defraud; and ruthlessly Plundering (i.e. extraction by Theft) all the world's natural resources; and indeed Hoarding ALL Hard Currency (MONEY), ALL Other Assets, along with significant natural resources.

The Robber Barons, the monied Rulers, do POSSESS, ALL to themselves, approximately 46 Trillion U.S. Dollars that they've secretively stashed away in various TAX-FREE HAVENS. The so-called DEBT, any "shortages," are a direct result of HOARDING. Period. The Criminal-Tyrants have indeed been actively absconding all WEALTH, including U.S. citizens' Tax Dollars, for themselves.

In FACT, The entire financial system, Wall Street, the Banks, the Corporate Governors, and the entire Kleptocratic U.S. Government, is built on FRAUD; and THAT Scheme has been deliberately engineered by the tiny Ruling Class, i.e. the Robber Barons, the Tycoons, The Trillionaires.

These unconscionable power-mongers, specifically but not limited to the Republican Party, only seek to continue the totally disastrous, utterly ruinous policies of more Deregulation of ALL industry; The Thoroughly corrupt Privatization of all previously PUBLIC sectors; And the rest of the world can just simply DIE OFF. They don't care A WIT.

By the way, the newly-coined term "ENTITLEMENTS," are NOT "Entitlements." That is a contrived term used only just recently and nowadays to make the very programs that all U.S. citizens have PAID into for YEARS, look and seem like undeserved WELFARE. It is NOT: The FACT is that the multitudes of U.S. citizens who have diligently paid their taxes, have paid into Social Security and Medicare, for many long years, indeed deserve what they've already paid for all of their wretched lives.

So, if these government hacks want to bring up the debt, the very debt that they themselves created through their own thoroughly failed and still- failing policies over the last four decades, I propose a referendum vote:

Retract entirely and completely, every health care benefit that government HUMPS get on OUR, the TAXPAYERS, BACKS. Everyone, every last one of them, is to be included: the entire Congress, i.e. the House and Senate for those of you who know NOTHING; each and every department; Every filthy parasite that clings to the government teat, all on OUR, the Taxpayers', BACKS.

And then, they would all have to do just as WE DO: That is, to buy flagrantly inflated, anti-American, for-Profit Health Care "Insurance" i.e. ONE OF THE BIGGEST SCAMS IN HISTORY. Oh, and just as soon as one of these worse-than-useless HUMPS gets sick and needs health care, let the Insurance company CEO DENY COVERAGE and unceremoniously PULL THE PLUG.

As to AUSTERITY MEASURES, let's CUT OUT every single one of their other obscene benefits, that we the Taxpayers pay for: their secret service, their limousines, and LET'S CUT THEIR SALARIES by 100%. And if they can't afford to live high on the hog, all off of OUR tax-payer dollars, Let them ROT on SKID ROW where they TRULY belong; And let THEM apply for "ENTITLEMENTS"--Only to be DENIED.

Social security has never been an investment. It's a social program where the current body of workers gives monthly payments to the previous group. If it sounds like a ponzi scheme, you're not far from the truth....

The rest of your rant (and that is what it is) is illogical, unscientific and just plain hooey. How much would we really save by cutting the benefits for those in power? I'm not arguing that they shouldn't also face cuts, but to think that the reason for the deficit is corrupt officials is asinine.

There are a number reasons we're in a pinch now - (1) Bush's tax cuts, (2) unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (3) government programs to prop up the economy, and the biggest of all (4) future runaway growth (at rates larger than GDP increases) in social programs like SSN, Medicare and Medicaid. Both parties recognize that these are the issues, and in private would probably admit that something needs to be done to address each. Right now they're posturing about who takes the hit first.

Mark my words - in the end, all of these things will need to be reformed.

OK now you're starting to sound like a committee and not just 1 person. You make good points that I much agree with but let's see your reading list please.

The thieving rich are as dumb and insecure as the poorest of the poor. I know because I read FOR one of em! But he's dumb as toast and thinks zeitgeist understanding is a credible and worthy way for him to think. One must deliver thoughts like yours with kid gloves for them to not be immediately rejected.

The only run away cost is Medicare. Health care has been enjoying 5% or more above inflation for many decades. Of the expansion in cost most of it goes to the last few weeks and months of life. If we simply had people put on hospice care when direly ill at 75 and above we might see costs controlled.

Really, in the long term Medicare should stop covering end of life treatment, and instead a medical savings account should be used. People who save up for those last three months can do what they wish with the money.

Of course if the Fed made a savings target for the population, promoting good financial habits in the general population, we might enjoy better prosperity in a decade or two.

In the short term, we do need to stop the cliff falling off - a short term compromise is needed. I do really wish a longer term tax reform to be among first priority in 2013. Somehow I am not very keen on betting that to happen. Given recent events, firearm control will be on DC tables as well. And I am sure that will cost some time too.

It is perfect time for Norquist to conspire and scheme with NRA to let nothing happen for 2013...

They'll get back to the point where Congress has to authorise an increase in the debt ceiling again, and Obama will have to again relent if he wants America to function for more than a week after the talks break down. I think this is his only chance to hold out on the GOP.

You are assuming that, if the debt ceiling talks break down, the Republicans will somehow manage to make their failure to pass the necessary legislation Obama's fault. But since Congress has to take action to raise the limit, if the Democrats put up a bill to do so in the Senate (even if the Republicans filibuster it) and the Republicans in the house refuse to do so, who do you think will get the blame?

Or do you think that the Republicans in the House would manage to come up with a bill, all on their own, to both raise the debt ceiling and make all the cuts that they say they want? Because coming up with legislation like that all on their own has not been their demonstrated strong suit.